Supreme Court Stays Arrest Of Kerala Journalist Shajan Skariah In FIR On Complaint By MLA & Former CJI's Son-In-Law PV Sreenijin
|The Supreme Court today stayed the arrest of Shajan Skariah, editor and publisher of Kerala-based Marunadan Malayali in the Special Leave Petition filed by him impugning the order of the Kerala High Court which rejected his anticipatory bail application for allegedly humiliating and making false allegations and accusations against MLA PV Sreenijin through a news video uploaded in the online news channel.
PV Sreenijin is an MLA of the ruling party and is also the son-in-law of the former Chief Justice of India, K. G. Balakrishnan. The Kerala Police had invoked offences under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on a complaint of the MLA. The Trial Court and the High Court had both denied him anticipatory bail.
The Bench of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha issued notice on the plea. "Pending further orders, there shall be a stay of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the FIR", the Court ordered.
"The High Court has written such a strong order. That is why said, let me first go and see the transcript. Sometimes, the stronger the order the more you feel that we must look into it a little more carefully", the CJI said after passing the order.
At the outset, when Senior Advocate V Giri appeared for the defacto complainant, the CJI said that this is a case for anticipatory bail.
"Please look at the manner in which.. He does this to everybody", Giri said. "That is the problem. His statements may be defamatory. But this is not an offence under the SC ST Act. He said something about his father in law etc., he said it in bad taste. But this is not...", the CJI said.
"I read the transcript. There is not a whisper of an allegation under the SC ST Act in the statement", the CJI said reading the relevant provision of the Act. The CJI said that "on the ground of caste" is missing in Section 3(1)(r) but it has to be read in a reasonable manner.
"Your client belongs to the Scheduled Caste, he said something nasty to your client. But this has no implication on your caste status at all", the CJI said. "He says something about your father-in-law, about the judiciary, it may still be defamatory. You can still take whatever other remedies that you have against him but not a case for arrest", the CJI said.
Senior Adovocate Giri then read Section 3(1)(r) of the Act. "Does that mean that suppose, A is a member of SC has a contract with B. A takes 25 lakhs and does not return that money to B. B calls A a cheater. Does that involve an offence under (r)", Justice Chandrachud asked.
"It depends upon whether he has the intention. That is the distinction between (s) and (r)", Giri replied. The statement was then read out in the Court.
"The statement is very colourful. I must say that", the CJI said. "Should we be teaching him a lesson because of the fact that we don't approve of his statement by sending him to jail? We thoroughly disapprove of his statement, but jail is not the answer", the CJI added.
Giri then read the statement and submitted that Shajan Skariah mentioned the name of the constituency of the MLA only because the same is a reserved constituency for 20 years, only to highlight the caste of the MLA.
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra along with Senior Advocate Sidharth Dave appeared for Skariah but did not have to make any submission.
Senior Advocate Ranjith Kumar appeared for the state and submitted that the petitioner has not joined the investigation even once. "This is not a case where money is to be recovered, weapon of offence is at large", the CJI said laughing.
After the order was dictated, the Court told Dave that the petitioner is a senior journalist and that he has said things that even ordinary people would not say. Dave replied, "We will definitely counsel him. The gentleman invokes this very statute repeatedly. There are other cases. Anybody says something against him, there is one legislation he takes recourse to". The Bench laughed at the submission.
The Kerala High Court had on June 30, 2023, in its order, noted that the materials on record do indicate that the video is intended to insult and humiliate the MLA. The Court stated that "At this stage, the court can only go by the allegations in the complaint and the attendant circumstances. The allegation is specific to the effect that the appellant has been insulting and humiliating the second respondent only for the reason that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste. The attendant circumstances are the wanton nature of the allegations and the repeated news items published against the second respondent."
The High Court also noted that allegations levelled against the MLA include murder and contains insinuation against his father-in-law and bestows the title 'Mafia Don' on him. The Court said that as such, it can unhesitatingly be held that the video contains insults, which are intended to humiliate the MLA in public view.
The Court had in the impugned order observed that the four W's of journalism that used to guide journalists in their reporting and helped in ensuring the accuracy and completeness of news stories are: 'Who, What, When and Where' while the videos like the one under consideration make one wonder whether the W's have been replaced with D's; 'Defame, Denigrate, Damnify and Destroy'.
The MLA Sreenijin had submitted the complaint, that he is being singled out by the appellant for the reason of being a Scheduled Caste member. Shajan was then booked under the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.